Private property is natural

Private property is natural
Because nature is a place to die from starvation/thirst/exposure. So if, by investing energy, a being manages to find food (energy), it will protect that energy from beings tyhat did not. Example:
The cheetah: runs incrediblyfast – spending lots of energy – to catch a prey, then drags that catch into a tree out of reach of hungry hyenas.
The squirrel: hides nuts for eating during hard cold times
Parental love: parents are protective of their own genes
Love: partners are protective of THEIR partner (maybe, because the partner may help reproduce the genes)
Bees sacrfice their lives to protect the nest (sometimes callled hive), not out of generosity, but out of parental love. The queen is the only fertile one in the nest, all the other bees are related (share the same genes). Dawkins wrote about this, from the perspective of biology – genes, inheritance
Of course, ancoms (in the FB group Pure Anarchist Philosophies) discredit anarcho-communism by spectacularly, deliberately, even violently not understanding this.

Definite proof against government

There’s the issue of the jurisprudence from the treaty of Versailles; the German people were punished for not having stopped the emperor ftom starting WW1 – a bad thing ™. This means that, for their own protection, the people have the right, nay: the duty to stop the government whenever it does anything bad. Now, given the incurable split among the population, this means that government is impossible, because one side will oust the government for not doing enough to e.g. reduce CO2. The other side will keep government from reducing this vital ingredient of life. The third side will rise up when the government launches another (unprovoked) war. And number four will be restless when there’s not enough beligerence against “our enemies” This means that stable government is impossible, but that’s politics’ own fault becausd without politucs, the world would not have been cleaved in two equal halves as is the case now.

Anthropological musings

What kept the Inca’s from developing economically? It may be their socialism, but let’s not forget the lack of transportation. Any bridges thrh had to get from mountain side to mountain side, were rope bridges. Transporting cargo requires bridges made of stone or wood. Not only did they not have horses to pull carts laden with cargo, but they could only cross valleys one person at the time on theirctope bridges.

The travel bans the European dictatorships have announced will reduce the surviving population to the level of development and to the size of the incas.

Since no more energy may be used to grow food, the problem of shipping food from the farms to the inner cities will be hypothetical.
The people there to be the first to starve. (Not just in Europe, also in the USA; if a dem wins the next US presidential election, because they will definitely implement #AOC’s ridiculous #GreenLeapBackward.
RIPNew YorkcCity and Los Angeles etc. It’s no coincidence that I name the citirs on both coasts with the most regressive populations

Stikstofpijn voor niets: ’Nederland wees meer gebieden aan dan nodig’

Natuurlijk wijzen die Hagenezen meer gebieden aan dan nodig is, want het gaat hen er alleen maar om, onze belangen op te offeren aan hun pretjes (de definitie van links, overigens) en zij vinden het fijn om het onverdiende aureool van grote redder te zien, wanneer zij in de spiegel kijken.

How Donald Trump won

Votes are always votes against, disguised as votes in favor of. Over half the country was not about to have the female Barack Obama get away with her, whatever ig was shewould have done. The fact that her campaign consisted of “vote for me, I have a vagina!” and “any vagina’d voter who does not vote for me, is a traitor to all womanhood!” probably had something to do with that, she forgot that half of the voters are not equipped with vaginas.
So, in defense: people voted for Donald Trump.
Whethef they liked him or not doesn’t matter, they disliked him a lot less that Hillary Clinton.
This is also why a small party like the LP will continue to struggle. Not enough people vote for them, because they are not big enough (because they are not big enough).
In that sense, a bote for a small party is a wasted vote. Because votes are not for a candidate, but against another candidate. When the small party gets 20,000,000 votes, that is huge for them, but hardly makes a dent in the 50,000,000 votes for Hillary
(I’m just making up numbers here, hence they all round up to whole millions), So, anyone who voted LP will have failed to keep Hillary out of delicious power.
So people voted Trump, because that was a big party’s candidate, bound to get more votes than candidates for smaller parties. So a ratio of 55-50-20 is not as good at keeping Mrs. Obama out of power, but a ratio of 55-70 is.

Purple haired refusal

The purple-haired player (Megan #Rapinoe) of the American girl’s football team announced that she wouldn’t meet Trump, when they won the championship.
Thank goodness for my anarchism giving me a clear perspective:
She had no right to say that. She happily enjoyed the fame and acclaim playing for the national team, meaning for Trump. If she wishes to make self-righteous statements about Trump, she should not have played for that team, nor taken his blood money.